United States v. Coburn

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division

July 22, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.CHRISTOPHER C. COBURN

ORDER

GREGORY A. PRESNELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This
Matter comes before the Court on the Defendant's Motion
for Judgement of Acquittal (Doc. 108), the Defendant's
Renewed Motion for Judgment of Acquittal (Doc. 118), the
Defendant's Motion for New Trial (Doc. 122), and the
Government's Response (Doc. 124).

I.
Background

During
a jury trial that ended on June 26, 2019, the Court became
aware of a related case, United States v. Sicard,
that was not disclosed as a related case under Local Rule
1.04(d). In open court, the Defendant moved for judgment of
acquittal, and the Court reserved ruling on the motion. Docs.
108, 109. The Jury found the Defendant guilty on five counts
of bankruptcy fraud and two counts for falsification of
records in a bankruptcy proceeding. The following day, the
Court entered an order directing the Government to show cause
as to why Sicard was not identified as a related
case. Doc. 116. In its Response to the Show Cause Order, the
Government stated that the nondisclosure was unintentional
and unprejudicial.[1] Doc. 117 at 1. The Defendant filed a Reply
to the Response to the Show Cause Order, arguing that he was
prejudiced by the failure to disclose the pending case
against Sicard. Doc. 119 at 4.

On July
3, 2019, the Defendant filed a Renewed Motion for Judgment of
Acquittal (Doc. 118), and on July 9, 2019, the Defendant
filed a Motion for New Trial (Doc. 122). The Government
responded (Doc. 124) on July 16, 2019.

II.
Analysis

A.
Motion for Acquittal

With
respect to Defendant's Motion for Acquittal, Fed. R.
Crim. P. 29 requires the Court to view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the United States and accept all
reasonable inferences tending to support the government's
case. U.S. v. Hernandez, 433 F.3d. 1328 (11th Cir.
2005).

In
order to sustain a conviction for falsification of records in
a bankruptcy proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1519, the Government must have proven three elements: (1) the
Defendant made a false entry in a record, document, or
tangible object; (2) the Defendant did so knowingly; and (3)
the Defendant intended to impede, obstruct, or influence the
proper administration of a case under Title 11. The
falsification of records charges brought against the
Defendant dealt with an application for Fee Waiver pertaining
to Sandra Arce, which was filed twice in different bankruptcy
proceedings for the same witness. Doc. 118 at 1. The
Defendant argues that, because there was no direct evidence
that he falsified records-Arce denied the signature on the
application was hers and said she did not know who filed the
application-there was insufficient evidence for the jury to
find the Defendant guilty.

In
order to sustain a conviction for bankruptcy fraud, the
Government must have proven three elements: (1) the Defendant
voluntarily and intentionally devised, or intended to devise,
or participated in a scheme or plan to defraud, with
knowledge of its fraudulent intent, which scheme is described
as charged in the indictment; (2) the Defendant did so with
intent to defraud; and (3) the Defendant filed a petition in
a Title II bankruptcy proceeding for the purpose of executing
or attempting to execute the scheme or plan to defraud. In
support of the bankruptcy fraud charges, the Government
introduced voluntary petitions for bankruptcy, four in Sandra
Arce's name and one in Jose Rivera's name, and checks
paid to the Defendant by Arce and Rivera. Both of them denied
signing the petitions. Doc. 118 at 3. Hijada testified for
the Government, stating that he had accompanied the Defendant
to bankruptcy court a few times and that he had only been
involved in filing a few bankruptcy petitions.[2] Hijada did not
testify that he saw the Defendant forge petitions.

As
explained in the jury instructions, direct evidence is
unnecessary to sustain a conviction. The Government
introduced evidence from which the jury could conclude that
the Defendant communicated with individuals who were facing
foreclosure and persuaded them to pay him in exchange for
help in stopping the foreclosures. After those
communications, petitions for bankruptcy and fee waiver forms
were filed. The witnesses testified that they had no
intention of legitimately filing for bankruptcy and that
Coburn was the person who offered to help them by filing
paperwork. Here, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence
to find the Defendant guilty of falsification of records in a
bankruptcy proceeding and of bankruptcy fraud.

B.
Motion for New Trial

The
Defendant also moves for a new trial under Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 33(a). Rule 33(a) provides that,
“[u]pon the defendant's motion, the court may
vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of
justice so requires.” The Defendant incorporates his
Reply to the Response to the Show Cause Order into his Motion
for New Trial by reference. Doc. 122 at 1.

First,
the Defendant argues that he should receive a new trial
“[b]ecause the government failed to introduce evidence
sufficient to establish the requisite intent to defraud on
the part of Mr. Coburn.” Doc. 122 at 1. However, as
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.